Case at a Glance
A Family Court in South Tripura had awarded a wife and her son Rs 12,000 a month in total, effective only from May 2025, though the husband, a CRPF employee, drew a gross salary of Rs 1,08,120. The Tripura High Court found no specific reasons for that figure, raised maintenance to Rs 15,000 a month (Rs 10,000 for the wife and Rs 5,000 for the son), and, following Rajnesh v. Neha, made it payable from January 2023 — when the application was filed. Arrears are to be recovered from the husband’s salary in thirty instalments.
The parties married on 7 December 2014 and have a son. The wife alleged an illicit relationship and cruelty by the husband; after a panchayat-brokered reconciliation failed, she moved to her father’s house. On 16 January 2023 she applied for maintenance for herself and the child before the Family Court, Belonia, South Tripura. The husband, a CRPF employee, objected, citing bank loans and the need to support his parents, including their medical expenses.
By judgment dated 22 May 2025, the Family Court awarded Rs 12,000 a month — Rs 7,000 to the wife and Rs 5,000 to the son — from May 2025. His May 2024 salary slip (Exhibit-2) showed a gross salary of Rs 1,08,120. The wife and son filed a criminal revision seeking enhancement and payment from the date of the application. The husband, though served, did not appear before the High Court.
The Key Question Before the Court
Was the maintenance fixed by the Family Court adequate given the husband’s salary, and from which date should maintenance run?
Applying Rajnesh v. Neha: Adequacy and Start Date
Justice Biswajit Palit noted that the Family Court gave no specific reasons for fixing Rs 12,000. The High Court found that the husband’s present salary would be at least Rs 1,20,000 a month, and took it to be at least Rs 1,00,000 when the petition was filed. Applying Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., (2020) 11 SC CK 0009, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court held that the amount was insufficient for the needs of the wife and child. It drew on the Supreme Court’s statements that maintenance is meant “to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy”, that “Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival”, and that “The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic”.
On the start date, the Court followed paragraph 131 of Rajnesh: “maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance”. It also referred to the authorities discussed in Rajnesh, including Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 08 SC CK 0046, (1997) 7 SCC 7, Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2007) 11 SC CK 0118, (2008) 2 SCC 316, Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 04 SC CK 0108, (2015) 5 SCC 705 and Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2017) 01 SC CK 0049, (2018) 12 SCC 199. The husband had not disputed the marriage or paternity, and had not rebutted the petitioners’ evidence.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Family Court’s award of Rs 12,000 a month, fixed without specific reasons, was insufficient given the husband’s salary.
- Maintenance was raised to Rs 15,000 a month — Rs 10,000 for the wife and Rs 5,000 for the son — payable from January 2023, in line with Rajnesh v. Neha (para 131).
- Amounts already paid as maintenance or interim maintenance are to be adjusted; arrears are payable in thirty equal instalments in addition to the monthly amount, deducted by the DDO from the husband’s salary from November 2026.
- The monthly Rs 15,000 from October 2026 onwards is payable from November 2026 into the wife’s bank account until further orders; the DDO is to be informed for compliance.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It reinforces that maintenance should ordinarily run from the date of the application, not from the date of the Family Court’s order.
- It shows that an unreasoned figure that ignores a salaried husband’s documented pay can be corrected in revision.
- Recovery through salary deduction by the DDO gives the order practical teeth against a government employee.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives and Children
- Put the husband’s salary slip on record; the Exhibit-2 slip anchored the court’s assessment here.
- Ask expressly for maintenance from the date of filing; Rajnesh para 131 supports it.
- Where the husband is salaried, seek a direction to the DDO to deduct current maintenance and arrears.
For Counsel
- Challenge Family Court orders that fix an amount without reasons linking it to income and needs.
- Remember that pleas of loans and parental support did not prevent enhancement here.
- Ask for arrears in instalments with salary deduction to make recovery realistic.
Key Takeaways
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC ordinarily runs from the date of the application (Rajnesh v. Neha, para 131).
- The award was raised from Rs 12,000 to Rs 15,000 a month for wife and son.
- Arrears from January 2023 are recoverable in thirty instalments via salary deduction.
- Amounts already paid are to be adjusted against the arrears.
Frequently Asked Questions
From which date will the wife get the enhanced maintenance?
From January 2023, when the application was filed, instead of May 2025 as fixed by the Family Court, after adjusting amounts already paid.
How will the arrears be paid?
In thirty equal monthly instalments, over and above the regular maintenance, deducted by the husband’s Drawing and Disbursing Officer from his salary starting November 2026.
How did the court assess the husband’s income?
From his May 2024 salary slip showing gross pay of Rs 1,08,120; the court estimated his current salary at not less than Rs 1,20,000 and took it as at least Rs 1,00,000 when the petition was filed.
Conclusion
The revision corrects two common problems with maintenance orders — an amount that does not reflect the husband’s documented income, and a start date that ignores the years the case was pending.
Practical takeaway: In any Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS case, press for maintenance from the date of the application and put the respondent’s salary record before the court.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com